High Court Exercises Section 482 Powers to Quash Non-Compoundable POCSO Proceedings Based on Victim’s Hostile Deposition and Amicable Settlement

The applicant sought the quashing of proceedings in Special Sessions Trial No. 54 of 2022.

Respondent No. 2 (the victim's mother) lodged an FIR alleging that her 14-year-old daughter was enticed away and sexually assaulted by co-accused persons.

The applicant was later charge-sheeted under Section 67-B of the IT Act and Section 17 of the POCSO Act on allegations of recording the incident and circulating the video.

However, the victim (PW-1) turned hostile, denying the allegations in both her Section 164 Cr.P.C. statement and her trial deposition.

Subsequently, the applicant and respondents 2 and 3 entered into a voluntary compromise and filed a joint compounding application (I.A. No. 1 of 2026).

1. Whether the High Court can exercise its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash criminal proceedings involving non-compoundable offences under the POCSO and IT Acts based on a compromise and the hostility of the victim.

The Court primarily applied Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure regarding the inherent powers of the High Court to prevent abuse of process and secure the ends of justice.

It relied on the landmark precedents of Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, which allows quashing of non-compoundable private disputes.

Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, which emphasizes quashing when the possibility of conviction is "remote and bleak".

Parbatbhai Aahir v. State of Gujarat, reiterating that inherent powers must be used to ensure justice.

Statutory provisions involved included Section 67-B of the Information Technology (Amendment) Act, 2000, and Sections 14(1), 17, and 21 of the POCSO Act, 2012.

The Court observed that although the offences are non-compoundable, the victim’s categorical denial of the incident in her Section 164 Cr.P.C. statement and trial testimony (PW-1) effectively neutralized the prosecution's case.

The Court found no prima facie evidence on record to support the allegations of recording or disseminating objectionable material.

Applying the "remote possibility of conviction" test from Narinder Singh, the Court reasoned that continuing the trial would be a futile exercise and a waste of judicial resources given the amicable settlement and the victim's stance.

The Court noted the compromise was voluntary and without coercion, making this an "appropriate case" for the exercise of inherent jurisdiction to prevent the abuse of the process of law.

The Court allowed Compounding Application I.A. No. 1 of 2026 and consequently quashed the entire proceedings of Special Sessions Trial No. 54 of 2022 pending before the Special Sessions Judge (POCSO), Champawat, qua the applicant.